It's official: LNG-mania is running wild among Canada's conservative politicians and pundits. Why, they keep asking, are we missing out on such a glorious opportunity to sell hydrocarbons to Europe -- and why won't the PM support it more vocally.
Here's why. A thread.
First, the facts: Russia's invasion of Ukraine has sent European natural gas prices soaring. The UK, among other countries, is in for a very difficult winter. If we had LNG terminals on the US east coast, we'd be able to help.
But we'd need a Delorean for that.
Why? Because up until this year, the long-term market for LNG looked....not great. Here's the IEA's forecast from 2019. iea.org/data-and-stati…
That's the thing about the LNG business: you're making a long-term bet on the price of the commodity, one that you often can't lock in. And prices have gyrated *wildly* in recent years.
Oh, and there's that climate change thing lurking out there.
If you believe, as our oil sands companies apparently do, that we'll reach net-zero emissions by 2050, then there's almost no room for additional LNG projects.
Here's the IEA's forecast around that. See the quick peak and quick decline? That's not good for new projects.
Their report: “During the 2030s, global natural gas demand declines by more than 5% per year on average, meaning that some fields may be closed prematurely or shut in temporarily."
Declining demand = falling prices. Would you invest in a long-term project in that environment?
LNG proponents love to talk about how it will reduce emissions from coal. But here's the thing: renewables can (and will) do that too. Battery technology improvements are going to be a game changer. noahpinion.substack.com/p/decade-of-th…
But oil and gas enthusiasts refuse to see this. Here's Eric Nuttall, Canada's biggest oil and gas fund manager, in a recent piece for the @financialpost.
Building new projects right now makes very little business sense. The PM was right about that.
But what about the past, you say! Surely he's responsible for the absence of a bunch of projects.
Not quite.
Here's a summary of all the projects that have come before the NEB/CER. Sure seems like a lot of approvals to me.
In fact, the only project they've blocked is LNG Saguenay -- one that the Government of Quebec came out and rejected first. If you believe in provincial autonomy and jurisdiction (Hello, Danielle Smith!) then surely their decision should be respected. Right?
One final complaint I hear often: look at all the LNG projects in the United States!
There's a pretty big difference between the US Gulf Coast (heavily industrialized, abutted by a major oil and gas producing state) and BC's north coast.
If Alberta was on the coast and California stood between the US natural gas deposits and its only source of tidewater, the situation would probably be reversed.
But geography abides.
So, should we be helping Germany and Europe? Absolutely. But unless someone has the ability to travel back in time a decade or so and convince everyone to support LNG terminals, there's no point in braying about the "missed opportunity".
Instead, let's focus on the one in front of us: the energy transition. Europe is already accelerating its plans there, by the way. So is the United States. So is China. And so on.
Let's not get left behind because some people want to live in the past.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Either Pierre Poilievre doesn't actually know what's happening here or he's depending on his followers not bothering to fact-check him.
Allow me. 🧵
First of all: no, Europe is not "exempting its businesses" from the industrial carbon tax. It's exempting small importers, who tend not to import things like steel, cement, and aluminum.
99% of said emissions will remain covered by the regulation.
Ironically, that's not even what the piece he links to is talking about.
Instead, it's referring to the change that will see *exporters* exempted from the carbon tax (or made whole on payments they've already made).
Oil production is up, while emissions are slightly down. Good news, right?
Sort of.
The heaviest lifting, by far, was done by the electricity sector. Why? Because the NDP government implemented a coal phaseout, one that ultimately beat its 2030 target by seven years.
This is an interesting interview, and anyone interested in Alberta should listen to it if only to hear what the Alberta NDP is up against. Smith is a very skilled storyteller.
But that's just it: they're stories. I'll dig into one in particular.
Herle asks her what would be different if Harper had won the 2015 election and been prime minister ever since. It's a good question, and one I've asked folks many times.
Her answer is representative of her politics: it sounds reasonable and yet the facts clearly contradict her.
“We would have built the Northern Gateway pipeline,"
she begins, "because it was already approved and permitted.”
Would we? I know @andrew_leach has all the receipts here about how Harper's government alligator-armed the project, but I want to share this tweet instead.
The prospect for oil demand peaking within a few years isn't just an academic conversation. It's central to the conversation around an independent Alberta -- one the premier keeps stoking.
The piece she's quoting is a huge mess. It conflates peak *supply* and peak *demand*, and spends most of its time talking about the former.
Nobody, to be clear, is actually worried about the former.
The author also claims that the International Energy Agency is "an intergovernmental organization on energy aimed at achieving global net-zero emissions."
Andrew is right that Corbella is misrepresenting the facts on C-69 and Gateway. That's par for the course here.
Indeed, it's *central* to understanding the argument she's making. It depends on a wilful misrepresentation of the past, one designed to keep Albertans angry.
Her argument depends fundamentally on the notion that the emissions cap is, in fact, a *production* cap.
This is what the industry wants people to believe. Gee, I wonder why?
I respect Christopher Ragan. But I don't agree with this column he wrote on western alienation. A thread: 🧵readtheline.ca/p/christopher-…
He starts by acknowledging the evils of the National Energy Program, and how it was "easy to see the damage done to the Alberta economy as the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau intervened in the oil market to transfer massive sums of money to other parts of the country."
This is a pretty obvious example of spurious correlation, though. The NEP was renegotiated in 1981. Its provisions actually *favoured* the development of new sources like oil sands crude -- and promised to pay a *premium* for them.